Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect profile are settled. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of what comes back — parameters, request body schema, response schema, and a worked example — which an agent cannot infer from annotations alone. It stops short of describing pagination, versioning, or size limits of the introspection payload.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first enumerates what is returned, the second places the tool in the workflow. Both are front-loaded and every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return formatting, and the one required parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a single-argument introspection tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single operation_id parameter is already documented with a concrete format example ('goals:get_goal') and its source (semantichub_api_search). The description adds nothing beyond the schema about this argument, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Explains how to call one operation") with an enumerated payload: path and query parameters, body schema, response schema, and an example call. That tells an agent exactly what this tool yields, in contrast to api_read/api_write, which execute operations rather than describe them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit sequencing ("Use it before api_read or api_write") and names the two alternative tools it complements, plus the payoff condition for doing so ("so the arguments are correct on the first try"). There is no when-not clause, but the workflow role of a metadata-introspection tool is fully covered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.